Position Table

Faculty Governance Working Group 1

Improved Communications Position Paper

January 12, 2010

Background

At the July 22, 2009 Library faculty meeting, four overarching issues related to faculty
governance were identified for further discussion. This paper addresses the subject of improved
communication in three areas: (1) between the EC and the faculty; (2) between the administration
and the faculty; and (3) within the faculty. Members of the team are: Lura Joseph, William
Maher, Scott Walter, and David Ward.

This position paper will define the issues and make recommendations for improvements and
further actions including which recommendations can be implemented in the short term and which will
require a longer term. Where appropriate, recommendations are followed by possible outcome measures
and assessment metrics to enable the Library to evaluate the success of the various proposals one
year from their implementation. This position paper will be reviewed by the EC, shared with the
faculty at large, and discussed at upcoming faculty meetings.

Toward these ends, the team requested faculty input through a questionnaire distributed via
the LIBFAC-L list in late November with a follow-up e-mail in early December. With a total number
of only 16 respondents, the following report of issues and faculty suggestions received can only be
regarded as preliminary and suggestive.

1.0 Communication between the EC and the faculty

1.1 Issues

Faculty response was mixed, with the majority of respondents feeling EC has improved
communications, especially through use of the EC web site, and some faculty feeling EC is
unresponsive and does not adequately consider both sides of all issues. Additionally, most of
the respondents who viewed communication as more responsive still felt it was not sufficiently
detailed, timely, or informative, and had suggestions for improvement.

Respondents in general wanted more direct communication from EC members, and more opportunities
to have their opinions considered as part of EC discussions. Respondents also wanted more
time to provide feedback, and felt that some of the short deadlines imposed on decisions for EC
agenda items conveyed that faculty input was perfunctory and would be ignored. Additionally,
currently when a faculty member provides feedback in response to a call from EC, their feedback is
often not acknowledged as having been received.

2.0 Communication between the library administration and the library faculty

2.1 Issues

By themselves, the limited number of responses received by the Task Force do not provide an
unequivocal basis for restructuring the communication mechanisms between Library administration and
faculty. Still, they can provide useful anecdotal insight into perceptions and ideas that
merit consideration. As one might expect in any survey, there were some who expressed only
satisfaction with existing mechanisms for administration-to-faculty communication, but others were
troubled by what they had experienced as one-sided administrative communication that left them
feeling as if they were in an echo chamber. Overall, there seemed to be a clear desire for
communication channels that would enable faculty to have meaningful input into administrative
decisions.

While some noted satisfaction with mechanisms such as LIBFAC-L, LIBNEWS-L, the State of the
Library address, and Library faculty meetings, others expressed concern that the overall lack of
genuine debate at faculty meetings was contributing to a decline in attendance and usefulness of
the meetings. Regarding the Administrative Council, it was noted that the process of
presenting an issue to the Administrative Council, then having Division Coordinators communicate
the matter to units within their respective divisions was not so efficient as direct communication
to unit heads, such as could be done through focused e-mail lists. At the same time, it was
suggested that Divisions needed to be more consistently and promptly informed of pending
administrative matters.

More than a few commented about the disjuncture between the Executive Committee and the
Divisions. Some noted that they had experienced more timely and useful communication when
they had a fellow Division member sitting on the EC. Others noted that past practice and the
Bylaws had clearly separated Executive Committee membership from representation of the
Divisions. The Executive Committee has been at-large since at least the mid-1970s. The
current role of the Divisions outside of the line of authority in official policy-making was a
consequence of the early 1990s disbanding of the Departments done in the name of facilitating
cross-library administration, and it is arguable that this element of the 1990s restructuring,
which was understood as experimental at the time, may need to be revisited, at least in part.
While replacing the current at-large basis of the Executive Committee with a representative one
would be a radical step simply to solve our communication problems, there does appear to be a need
for improved formal communication from both the administration and the Executive Committee to the
Divisions, perhaps through the more conventional route of the Division Coordinators or perhaps
through some new and creative mechanism.

While there were strong concerns about the current one-way nature of administration/faculty
communication, the Task Force was disappointed that there were few suggestions for ways the faculty
could increase the amount of communication it offered to administration. Nevertheless,
concerns appear to be held widely enough to call for serious attention to how we can build means
for expression of dissenting views, for example through open forum debates at faculty
meetings.

The Task Force notes that there is the ever-present problem of faculty timidity or even
self-censorship. In some instances it may be newer and untenured members not wanting to risk
their career. In other cases, it may be long-term veterans not wanting to be ritually
dismissed as obsolete or intransigent. In still other cases, it may be faculty who have some
level of administrative responsibility concerned that whatever they say will be dismissed as the
administration's "party line." Given the interpersonal dynamics in a large academic
organization like the Library, none of these fears are unreasonable even if actual incidents of
such consequences are exceedingly rare to non-existent. Because a robust mix of ideas and
perspectives is so critical to our vitality in these changing times, it seems essential that we
work to set such fears to rest. Indeed, the more that diversity of opinions that can be
voiced actively at faculty meetings (e.g., by the occasional minority report from the Executive
Committee or occasional "point/counterpoint" discussion) the more likely it will be that all
faculty will begin to understand that a rich and divergent dialogue is part of what is expected of
faculty members and thus encouraged to speak up more frequently.

3.0 Communication within the faculty

3.1 Issues

Feedback from the questionnaire addressed communication within the faculty in two broad
categories: 1) interactions & exchange of information between people (face-to-face and
electronic); 2) discussion of issues. There is a difference of opinion regarding what does and does
not work. Many mentioned communication problems within the faculty, although some noted that this
is not unusual for large organizations. Some respondents indicated that they were often not sure
what is going on, or whether there are issues of which they are unaware.

Regarding face-to-face communication, some individuals think that faculty meetings are important
and work well for communication while others have strong negative feelings regarding faculty
meetings, and believe that there should be fewer reports and more discussion of important
issues.

Some individuals think that faculty meetings are important and work well for communication while
others have strong negative feelings regarding faculty meetings, and believe that there should be
fewer reports and more discussion of important issues.
[1] Opinions split on the usefulness
divisional structure as a mechanism for communication.

E-mail, LIBNEWS-L, and LIBFAC-L were viewed as useful for sharing information, but LIBNEWS-L and
LIBFAC-L are currently announcement channels and not discussion forums. Meanwhile, ingrained habits
such as over-use of unexplained acronyms in e-mails and documents act as barriers to
communication.

Mention was made of "dysfunctional" communication, such as gossip and talking about other people
behind their backs. Some untenured faculty members indicated that they had been advised not to
speak up in faculty meetings. Meanwhile, although some respondents commented that we need to
start appreciating each other more, the desired outcome was not entirely clear. It is possible that
faculty members are seeking more specific, individual commendation, in addition to pro forma
appreciation given during annual talks and in salary notices.

Overall, the largest area of dissatisfaction concerned the discussion of issues. A notable
response was that there is rarely real discussion of substantive issues in public forums, places
where real disagreements could be raised and discussed without faculty feeling threatened with
repercussions. While there is occasional discussion about policies via LIBNEWS-L, LIBFAC-L, web
forums, and internal blogs, these respondents did not see much real discussion of major
issues. Other difficulties noted include the problem of getting everyone together face-to-face
for discussion, given staffing needs. Meanwhile, it seems clear that some people do not feel
empowered to speak up in a large group. Divisions appear to vary considerably in terms of how,
what, and how much they communicate internally, resulting in varying advantages and disadvantages
among faculty from different divisions. There were strong feelings that faculty meetings should be
venues for debating issues, programs, and projects, and suggestions that these should be voted
upon.

Clearly there is overlap among the issues covered by the communication team, and those covered
by the teams addressing faculty meetings and our culture. An apparent lack of common understanding
about what shared governance is can contribute to unfulfilled expectations and
misunderstandings. There also is not a universal acceptance of the divisional structure, with
some seeing it as antiquated, and others viewing it as providing a useful forum for communication
among the faculty. So, while there are problems related to communicating information, the
main dissatisfaction appears to be with the discussion of major issues, and the extent to which the
faculty has influence over outcomes.

Recommendations for improving communication between the EC and the faculty.

The EC website was widely cited as an improvement and beneficial to EC-faculty communication;
it should continue to be enhanced as described below;

Email EC minutes to LIBFAC-L along with the announcement that they are posted to the website;
include the URL of the EC website in the email;

Provide a mechanism for faculty to suggest EC agenda items;

Post EC minutes sooner; provide more details in the minutes on decisions made and
implementation steps approved;

Provide an anonymous feedback form on the EC website for agenda items, similar to the NSM
website;

Set a deadline for all calls for feedback on EC discussion items;

Respond to/acknowledge all feedback received from faculty; possibly implement an OTRS-like
system to assure that comments are acknowledged in a timely manner;

Have at least one open EC meeting per semester; faculty could come and observe all
non-confidential (e.g. personnel, etc.) discussions.

Alternately, schedule a timed discussion time for agenda topics before some EC meetings, when
faculty could come give their opinions on a topic, after which EC would meet to discuss the topics
with the direct faculty feedback in hand. Scheduling some EC meetings directly after faculty
meetings might help accomplish this.

Have an EC member visit each division at least once a semester to discuss EC agenda items;
these visits would not be as "representatives" of the division, but rather a chance for more
direct, small group contact between faculty and EC;

Discuss upcoming EC agenda items at faculty meetings in addition to reporting previous
meeting's minutes; provide time at faculty meetings for a more robust discussion on topics EC is
discussing, and an opportunity for suggestions and feedback on possible agenda items for EC to
discuss (see Faculty Meeting Review Group recommendations).

Recommendations for improving communication between the administration and the
faculty:

The University Librarian should have regularly scheduled meetings with each Division;

Increase the amount of day-to-day, two-way communication between Library administration and
Library faculty;

Associate Librarians need to do a better job of regularly communicating what they have been
doing in their particular areas. In addition to concise regular reports, all AULs should hold
regular open office hours.
[2]

The minutes and agenda of some of the key groups need to be distributed by e-mailing links to
newly posted items to faculty members (The minutes and agenda of some of the key groups need to be
distributed by e-mailing links to newly posted items to faculty members. (Sending just the links
would avoid over-filling e-mail inboxes, and sending e-mail notices avoids the necessity to
constantly monitor the committees' websites). Key groups include: Budget Group, Services Advisory
Committee, Executive Committee, and Administrative Council. While there is a delicate balance
between keeping people informed and overfilling their in-boxes, simply posting agendas to committee
websites, which often are not up-to-date, is less effective for letting faculty know when a
critical issue is up for a decision.
[3] At the same time, calls for input on major
issues require sufficient time for considered reaction, not simply at the end of the week when
action needs to be taken at the following Monday's Administrative Council or Executive Committee
meeting or at the next day's Collection Development Committee.

Library administration should issue more focused communications that clearly lay out what
decisions have been made, why, and with what consultation without being burdened by too much
extraneous explanation/justification.

Recommendations for improved communications within the faculty:

Clarify the understanding of shared governance, its process, and extent with the Library, and
at the University of Illinois.

Attempt to change the organizational culture to encourage debate, discussion, and
participation. Encourage an evidenced-based culture in which facts are presented to back-up
positions being discussed.

Create one online, library-wide bulletin board which can be constantly updated by faculty
members to include information about important projects, changes, consolidations, retirements,
anniversaries, grants and awards, leaves, ongoing research projects, and other information such as
contacts and links to additional information.

Create more opportunities for casual interactions.

Provide more means of across-unit/across-division communication regarding initiatives critical
to the whole Library, such as best practices, metrics, and goals.

Make more effective use of technology and build people skills so that meetings can become more
efficient, information can be disseminated quickly, and dialogue can be encouraged even as we face
further reductions in staff.

Possible outcome measures and assessment metrics

Statistics on how often feedback forums are used (e.g. number of posts on a topic on the EC
webpage, emails received by EC on topic, etc.);

Statistics on public meetings (faculty, Divisions, etc.) where EC members are present to
discuss EC agenda items;

Conduct a survey in one year focusing on what changes were made, and whether they have improved
communications in the three areas discussed in this report.

[1] The Communications Team defers details on
matters regarding faculty meetings to the separate team working on that subject.

[2] It is recognized that there are a variety of
communication tools already used, in differing degrees, by each of the AULs. Because comments
on this issue did not single out any particular AUL, it is impossible to surmise which mechanisms
or AUL seemed to be communicating more effectively than the others. Regardless, the concerns
do suggest that there may be merit in developing a more uniform approach for such communication
among the AULs. Similarly, while the AUL's annual reports and goals can be found by clicking
through the Library Staff website, the concerns voiced to the Task Force were for more frequent
reporting and in ways requiring a little less digging than presently.

[3] An RSS feed might be an appropriate tool here
if the technology could be "tuned" so that those wanting to get an actual notice to their e-mail
box could do so while those satisfied with a simple pop-up message in their browser or in their
RSS-reader software could set up their notifications in that way.